Friday, March 25, 2011

At Mondays Local 157 meeting, newly nominated President pro tem Mike Bilello, refused to accept a motion for a copy of the meeting minutes saying, “I am done with this issue, it's been beaten to death.”

In the seconds it took him to make that statement, brother Bilello defined who he really is.

March 21, a day which will live in UBC history--- Local 157 was thrown into the unprecedented position of having no President and Vice President because of Review Officer ("RO") Dennis Walsh zealous investigation of organized crime influence over the District Council.

Netted so far in the investigation were eight council employees, among them were, President Lawrence D'Errico, who's employment the RO is considering vetoing, Vice President Anthony Pugliese, who was pushed into retirement because he refused to cooperate, and Financial Secretary Paul Capurso, who is consulting with an attorney.
Capurso, who played a prominent role in the meeting, did not inform the members about the RO’s investigation, stating only that D’Errico was "unavailable" and Pugliese has retired.

Bilello was elected President pro tem, and according to Capurso, in accordance with Section 32 D of the UBC Constitution. Capurso also stated that Bilello will act as president pro tem for the March meeting "only."

As stated in the reading of the minutes from the previous month, Brother Dan Franco made a motion for a copy of the meeting minutes and President D'Errico once again refused to accept the motion, stating “the issue is resolved and suggested he file an amendment to the constitution for the meeting minutes.”

After the reading, I informed president pro tem Bilello that D'Errico once again violated the UBC constitution and Roberts Rules of Order by not accepting the motion and it was utter nonsense to suggest you need an amendment to the constitution.

I made a motion for a copy of the minutes and low and behold the newly nominated President pro tem, followed in the footsteps of D'Errico, and denied the motion saying "I am done with this issue, it's been beaten to death, and I am not accepting the motion.”

Background

In October 2010, the executive board voted no to a request for a copy of the meeting minutes and an open microphone. Disagreeing with the e-board's decision, I made a motion for a copy of the meeting minutes. Capurso, left his seat on the dais, joined the assembly (along with other e-board members) and falsely implied that the UBC Constitution prohibits a member from having a copy of the minutes, in essence intimidating the membership into submission with misinformation, scare tactics and the motion was defeated.

Since that time, the motion has been made at every consecutive meeting and D'Errico has continued to violate the constitution, Roberts Rules and used trickery and misinformation all in an effort to prevent and suppress the membership from having a proper debate, and vote on the motion. (See letters written to Spencer and the IG)

FACT: Many UBC Locals distribute a copy of the minutes to members before the start of the meeting in-order to facilitate the meeting; our District Council does the same at the council delegate meetings.

The duties of the president are clearly spelled out, among other things, he is to be the presiding officer at all meetings, enforce and be knowledgeable in the constitution and laws of the Brotherhood, Robert Rules, decide all questions of order, subject to appeal, facilitate (make easier) the meeting, not to dictate what happens in the meeting, be honest, fair and remain neutral from partisan politics.

The membership did not nominate/elect Bilello Dictator or King. Bilello does not get to decide what issue should be discussed and what issue should not be discussed.

Did former 608 members (who had their local dissolved for corruption only to be forced into a more corrupt local) get to participate in the debate in October? Do you think they might have something to add to the debate? Does Bilello incorrectly believe that a decision of members at one meeting binds the decision of the members at a future meeting? The membership of this union has been egregiously abused by Forde, then D'Errico, and now sadly Bilello seems to be continuing where D'Errico left off.

The Issue is Members Rights and Violating the Rules

In case Bilello has not figured it out, I am going to say this once again, and I want to be very clear... The issue is not the meeting minutes, the issue is member’s rights being violated, the issue is the UBC Constitution being violated, the issue is Roberts Rules of Order being violated, and all of which Bilello has now contributed to. It's our rights that have been “beaten to death,” by D'Errico and now Bilello. This is what the issue is.

If you do not stand up and defend your rights and challenge decisions made by the presiding officer, those decisions and violations will be used against you in the future with other issues. Substitute "meeting minutes" with free mobility, contract, collective bargaining agreements or any other issue you like.

Bilello purports to be for democracy and members rights, unless of course he does not agree with what you are saying. He is certainly entitle to his own opinions, but not when presiding over meetings. If he wants to have an opinion; get off the dais and join the debate, don't stop others from having a debate because you are "done with this issue!"

I invite Bilello to enlighten us and show where in the rules it allows the presiding officer to not accept a motion because "he's done with the issue."

Parliamentary procedure is about helping members come to a decision; it is not about helping any one individual get his way, and it is certainly not intended to prevent members from participating in the process. Parliamentary procedure is about democracy and protecting the rights of the minority because often the minority point of view, over time with the proper discussion, becomes the majority point of view. There is no place in the meeting for the presiding officer to display arrogance towards the membership.

Informed Members Prevail

Later in the meeting a brother a made a motion to have a meeting agenda either mailed out, posted on the locals website or presented on a power-point display, and have the meeting minutes posted on the website. Bilello brushed off the member, said the meeting agenda is in the constitution, as he pointed to the "Order of Business," (which is not a meeting agenda) and incorrectly said, the meeting minutes issue has been dealt with, he than cited Rule 30, “When a question has been decided it can be reconsidered only at the same meeting or on the next regular meeting night.”

Another brother made a "point of order" and challenged Bilello's interpretation of Rule 30, explaining that Roberts Rules allows for a defeated motion to be brought up again, Bilello incorrectly ruled him "out of order."

And even later in the meeting, brother Dan Franco armed with his copy of Roberts Rules again challenged Bilello's incorrect interpretation of rules and Bilello's incorrect insistence sticking to Rule 30 which does not apply, Franco referred him to Roberts Rules, Bilello would not budge.

Having enough of Bilello's apparent arrogance and incorrect rulings, I made a "point of information," informed Bilello that he incorrectly denied a brother's motion to have the minutes posted on the website, which has nothing to do with his incorrect interpretation of the rules. The brother made a completely different motion, posting of minutes vs. copy of minutes. I restated the motion to have the minutes posted on the locals website, received a second, Bilello stated the motion, the members debated and voted, the motion carried.

26 comments:

The whole thing was odd. Gausman as VP, Bilello being agitated and short, dismissing the FIRST motion made, Capurso acting as Recording Secretary, president for March meeting only..... ALL without mics for members, terrible sound system. It was like playing charades. Get a better sound system, articulate and speak loud. Then perhaps we can have order in our next meeting.

To the guy attacking John, in case you have not noticed we are under international supervision. Do you think by having the local placed under supervision it would change anything. Spencer makes all the decisions that affect our livelihood, not one decision is made by the local.

Well I'm reading your comments back and forth and if John had any balls he would have gotten him self nominated. But I was at the meeting and I did see him even try. Alls I see was him now bash the new guy. And it seems he just wants to bust ball because he has none of his own. Maybe John should get a life.

Lebo - Get a grip...Bilello's Original "Motion" before the Court was for but one issue...the 67/33 Rule.

Through fraud, artifice & backroom self-dealing, the Court through Judge Berman has readily ignored the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the proper operation of a Court of Law and Motion practice and allowed the UBC International to turn the courtroom into a circus.

They have been allowed to introduce and inject the backroom deals made into a motion that have absolutely nothing to do with the Motion Bilello allegedly made on behalf of the Rank & File - whom he claims he represents.

Given that he cannot handle a very simple and minor issue of telling the damn secretary to hit print & shit out 50-copies of a set of Meeting Minutes for the Union Meeting clearly shows he is simply another puppet.

If anything is to change relative to corruption at the NYCDCC, you start with the most basic items (meeting minutes, direct elections via secret ballot to eliminate blackballing good men etc.)

If he can't handle this simple task, do you honestly think he'll stand up to the Mob or to Corrupt Contractors?

You can't see the forest for the trees. Insulting John or anyone else who calls an ace & ace won't change the facts - Bilello failed the first test & quite miserably.

Members are asking for transparency and accountability & he denied that day one; leaving no further explanation required.

Bilello is not fit to lead anyone, he is quite obviously a follower and he is in it for himself - make no mistake about it!

In reply to John; I posted an substantial comment here earlier today, actually in defense of your article, and it has disappeared. Any reason you know why?

I don't know why your comment did not get posted, I receive an email copy of all comments, and re-posted it.

Anonymous said...I was disappointed at how the meeting was facilitated by Brother Bilello, in particular regarding the meeting minutes, though he handled the issue slightly better than Derrico (at least there was some progress in the end.)

Allowing the member increased access to meeting information is common sense and entirely consistent with the spirit of direct democracy and Robert's Rules of Order.

Billelo's obstinate adherence to an irrational interpretation of Rule 30, and his arbitrary departure from the due process of consistently recognizing motions brought to the floor by all members, is a foul omen of history repeating in the perpetual cycle of dictators.

Because Bilello disagrees with a motion is not justification for blocking the members from voting on it.

Furthermore, if the issue is maintaining secrecy, the meeting can be moved to Executive Session where no records of the proceedings are kept (except results.) Limits of secrecy can be set accordingly for what is printed on paper or posted on the website by vote.

The real issue should be that there are bosses who hold cards, who can attend meetings, who can log on with a password to the District Council. Perhaps for security purposes bosses should not be eligible for membership.

But limiting access to information is sure sign of dictatorship; Bilello has acted in a way that has inspired a significant no confidence vote against him in a time when there should be no question about the qualifications of our elected officials.

"Roberts rules states, If the presiding officer ignores a motion a member should raise a point of order and call for an appeal from the decision of the chair, if the officer ignores the point of order a member should move that the assembly censure him, and that motion, if seconded can be put to a vote by the member, standing in his place, after debate unless the presiding officer vacates the chair and the vice president puts the motion to a vote. If the chair is the regular presiding officer and a motion to censure proves inadequate remedy, the proper course is to rescind the election or to initiate investigation, charges, and trail, as explained in offenses by members. The presiding officer here is clearly in the wrong and clearly suppressing the will of the membership. Should be censured and tried. The IG is wrong in his decision. The UBC constitution clearly states that "all questions of a parliamentary nature not provided in these rules shall be decided by Roberts' Manual."

D'Errico has misled the members with this whole issue of reconsidering the motion for the meeting minutes.

A main motion that is defeated usually cannot be brought up again at the same meeting unless someone who voted on the prevailing side moves to reconsider the vote, or unless time or circumstance change the motion. However, members can bring it up again at another meeting. This is called renewing the motion.

The motion was defeated in October. It was not reconsidered in October. It was defeated.

The motion can be made again in any future meeting.

D'Errico did not want the members to vote on the motion. Its that simple.

Bilello followed D'Errico and did not want the members to vote on the motion, thus denying the members the right to vote and the right to information.

Why would Bilello deny the motion and stick to his guns and agree with D'Errico's ruling?

He could have said he was unsure about the correct ruling and ask for a motion to have a debate on the issue of whether the members want to receive a copy of the meeting minutes. If the members voted they want to receive a copy of the meeting minutes, he could have ask for a motion to have the minutes distributed at the start of each meeting.

He did none of this, in his first simply test on being for members rights he failed miserably and defined who he really is. Another dictator!

If a member in good standing has a request or a question, who the fuck are any of you to try to shut them down? What's wrong with you guys? Is was that same righteous zealous lap dogs that kept order for Mike Forde. Mike Bilello doesn't need need the same shit. He knows enough to be able to defend his actions. His actions did disappoint some, but no one believes Mike Bilello is a bad guy. Real union men ask questions & demand answers. Real leaders are not afraid to answer the hard questions. You idiots trying to shut down John M are not doing Mike B any favors. Both men support transparency. There is a discrepancy on the motion, not the issue of given members the minutes. If you don't think it's important, fine! but don't deny me the right to have access to minutes of my local. We look like idiots fighting each other like this. You can support Mike B. decision and still respect the right of John M. to ask.

When are we, brothers and sisters, going to realize the we are running a corporation and one of the biggest business in the country. Print the minutes all ready,every big organization prints copies of there minutes. If it is put on the floor for a vote and the members vote yes for copies of the meetings minutes and our temp president or any other of our officials refuse to hear the memberships wishes he and they should be removed for not succumbing to the memberships wishes, as part of their sworn duties. I also think that all test results should be made public for the tests that were given for organizer. They should be posted on the website and printed out just as any other organization does,fireman,police,ie.

Also,I think that if any of the politicians want to come to our meetings looking for endorsements they should have to sign a document that states they will have to provide a certain amount of time of service to our union pro bono in gratitude for us helping them get elected. We are always out the with our members for them handing out flyers and I think its time for them to prove they are really with us. Most of these politicians running are lawyers maybe in this way we can cut down our legal fees. In closing I'd like to say any brother has the right to stand up and say what he wants but if he puts his idea on the floor for a vote and it is shot down he should just take it like a man and not prolong the situation at a meeting. Wait for the next meeting and try to get it to a vote again. Try try again and you might succeed but please don't tie up meetings when there are other issues to be heard

Donny Arana, Stop the campaigning for Mike Bilello, you posted you “believe him to be a man of action not talk, his actions speak for themselves.”

Yes his actions certainly do.

Bilello failed in his first action, and it was a no brainer...Who in their right mind would be for less transparency giving the state of affairs our union is in. He used very bad judgment and played it safe by serving the puppet masters, and following D’Errico’s determination from keeping the members from voting on the issue of meeting minutes.

This is not complicated stuff, to be muddle with nonsense regarding UBC rules. If he truly believed in transparency and members rights, he should have shown some political savvy, jump right on the issue and welcomed the chance to show the difference between UBC masters and real rank and file members who believe in members rights.

Bilello is another opportunist running around promoting himself as the next EST to anyone who will listen, getting guys like you all excited.

Stop and look what he did, He showed arrogance, contempt towards other members, insistence that he is right when it was pointed out he was wrong, the guy ruled another member out of order, when Mike was the one out of order.

He failed miserably, shot himself in the foot with a simple test, folded, pack your bags Mike, your out of here...end of story.

John you sick bastard their you go again posting anonymously to Donny . Donny haven't you figured this guy out yet. the minutes will will be posted and he will continue his crusade to bash any one the bad guys are being taken care of by Walsh. Everyone has had enough of the bashing time to start moving forward.

I do not post Anonymously... NY Carpenters said..."he will continue his crusade to bash any one." I am not on a crusade to bash anyone. I have not bashed Mike Bilello, I like Mike, I reported what happened at the meeting.

I attended the meeting last week , this is what happened Larry called for nominations to fill the position of President pro tem because Derrico was absent again. The members chose a pro tem President. No matter what law states anything or does not state anything, the members voted for a pro tem President for the meeting and for the meeting only.

He was never selected by the members to serve as pro tem except for the duration of that meeting. This was the basis under which this election took place.It is very important that the terms on anything approved or decided by a vote of the membership not be manipulated to something else. How do you know who would have run if it were for a position which would run until june as opposd to just for one night? How do you know that the members would have voted the same way if it were for a President until June?

People are posting that Biello as being the best man for the job. Yet most people have never met him and do not know him. So how do they reach this conclusion?

Last month he stuck to an irrational interpretation of the constitution, disagreeing with a motion and blocking the members from voting on it. This month he says there is a lot of gray area in the constitution. He twice incorrectly ruled members out of order for raising questions (a very harsh statement) without stating the reason why the questions are out of order. his actions in the past two months have been very disappointing and does not inspire confidence.

The bottom line is that the members did not select a person to fill the office of president pro tem until an election could be held, they selected a person to run the meeting on the understanding that this pro tem position was for the meeting only. It is not something which can be altered, it has happened and cannot be changed.

Mike Bilello is not electable, never ever. he has spent the last 15 years jumping from one bandwagon to the other, his craze for union office is as big as his ego. Like Bill Hanley once said "Bilello is in a hurry going nowhere and will use any kind of disguise to further his game, then he will turn his back on the people that supported him. Most if not all of his former friends were removed or fired for shady deals, they include John Early, Fred Kennedy,Pete Thomassen, George Memon, Zemski, Passante, Tuccello Paul Petropello. Any real union brothers would not blow their nose with him, so beware of his hidden agenda

When i mentioned Bilello's former friends getting removed or fired i was doing him a favor by not mentioning the fact that he got fired himself from the DC by Supervisor Newman and DC Officer George Delacio reason (NOT CAPPABLE OF DOING HIS JOB). That dismissal still stands and to this verry minute Bilello has not contested it, other than to piss and moan to Bi's like you. It is obvious that you live in the past as you posting indicate. You should move your focus away from the past. THEIR IS NO FUTURE IN THE PAST, and Mike Bilello is a spent relic of his own past, just like a gadfly on an old camels tail

I would ask that if you would like to leave a comment that you think of Local 157 Blogspot as your online meeting hall and that you wouldn’t say anything on this site that you wouldn’t, say at a union meeting. Constructive criticism is welcome, as we all benefit from such advice. Obnoxious comments are not welcome.

Labor Press

US labour news from LabourStart

News from ENR.com

Labor Relations Counsel

Former Review Officer

My work has been appropriately concluded. I am largely satisfied with the condition of the District Council, even more so with that of the Benefit Funds. I have endeavored to assist both in the pursuit of a prosperous future for their constituents. That is their solemn responsibility.

Let the bells ring. Though there is much good news, there are those for whom my departure is reason enough for celebration. But I hope that there are also those who reflect on what has been wrought, and on the simple question: what now?

To those who will continue to accept the imperative of working hard and meeting the challenges facing the Union with courage, energy and intellect, but most of all with honor, I will say well done.

Featured Posts

New York City Union Carpenters rank and file members staged a rally at union headquarters in Manhattan April 12 protesting corruption within council leadership and proposed changes to wages and mobility rules.